That should be the single most embarrassing phrase that anyone can imagine who has ever had anything but scorn for Barrack Obama

WTF!@! He has been the President for over 4 years, NOW he is going to get something done, because now he is paying attention?

IT takes moronic to an unprecedented level to hear this over and over and for these people to feel that this is a person not fit to be a Chicago community organizer, let alone a President

IT is like listening to yesterdays sound bites

If you could just sit down and talk to Palestinian children, you would want them to succeed.Who the frig does this moron think he is. What is the underlying assumption. That folks wanted ill for Palestinian children?

What an insulting dweeb this man is. How anyone that backs him can have any respect left is beyond me.

The birth certificate that the White House released is reputed by document experts to be false.

The Social Security number he has used was issued to someone else. He could not pass an E-Verify test. The first three numbers of his Social Security ID are reserved for applicants with Connecticut addresses, 040-049. The number was issued between 1977 and 1979. Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins in Oahu, Hawaii.

Many of the “facts” he cited in his two memoirs have turned out to be questionable, if not outright lies; particularly as regards his birth father, a citizen of Kenya at the time of his birth.

A job applicant with Obama’s paper trail would not even pass the smell test, but this man was elected and reelected. The role of journalism is to vet the credentials of anyone running for public office, let alone the highest office in the land. Instead, he has been protected against all inquiries and those making them have been called “birthers” or simply ignored.

Obama so routinely lies that keeping track of them would require a team of full-time archivists.

In August 2009 he said, “I have not said I was a single-payer supporter”, but in June 2003, as an Illinois state senator, he said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care system.”

President Barack Obama could not pass a background check if he was applying for a gun permit or a job. Why has this man been allowed to remain in office or take the oath for a second time?

If there is a background check required for free exercise of ANY constitutionally-protected right, that same background check should be done on all persons seeking to run for elective office. And if failure can't bar them from running or being on the ballot, the results should be made public.

(I wonder if a state law barring failures from appearing on the ballot would be Constitutional? I imagine it would be, as states are responsible for running elections.)

The birth certificate that the White House released is reputed by document experts to be false.

You're lying again. Just like the rest of your post. __________________

Just out of curiosity, I read your gibberish

Do you even know what Google is? There are many folks who claim themselves with knowledge of documents that indeed do claim that the birth certificate is a fake.

I had not really looked at this for a while because really at this point who cares. But you did make me wonder.

Indeed, you are wrong. Then again, as I remember you are almost always wrong, except of course when you voice opinion, then there really is no wrong and you are just so whacked it is usually pretty funny.

Since I think folks should really enjoy life, to you I say enjoy your ignorance, that being your only apparent option.

No reputable experts have determined that Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is forged. That's a subjective statement, meaningless in itself. There are equally 'no reputable experts' who have determined that Obama's bc is legit... completely equal and factually true... in other words; meaningless.

Unless you think Sheriff Arpaio's Tea Party "posse" and conspiracy theorist Jeremy Corsi and his partner Mike Zullo are experts. They don't have to be 'experts' because they're not asking anyone to blindly believe them on merely their statements. They have delivered exhaustive evidence that the PDF document presented as though it were Obama's B.C. is a photoshopped fraud.

And anyway, where do you think Obama was born? Where he was actually born doesn't matter at this point... what matters is that he (or those he entrusts) have committed fraud.

It might be the same stupidity as someone using a fake ID to buy beer after they've already turned 21.

He might very well have been born exactly as he claims... and he's still guilty of fraud. The fraudulent act may very well not be the false claim of birth, but the presentation of the clearly bogus documents trying to support the birth location claim.

At this point, there's seriously nobody of any credibility claiming the documents are legitimate. A bogus document created to support what may otherwise be true, is still a bogus document... fraud.

It really then leads to the question; WHY would he bother?

If it was really nothing more than because there truly is no such document... and its easier to foist the fraud than trying to explain the truth... that's a very weak justification and still blatant fraud.

Most people of common sense, when looking at the facts, suspect it is less innocent than this.

No reputable experts have determined that Obama's Hawaii birth certificate is forged.That's a subjective statement, meaningless in itself. There are equally 'no reputable experts' who have determined that Obama's bc is legit... completely equal and factually true... in other words; meaningless.________________________________

When the incredibly easy turns into the too complicated to do, and then your first instinct is to believe that the stuff a recovering heroine addict does regularly to get on welfare is impossible to get done by the President of the United States, well I just do not know what to say.

Again though, who really cares, no effort should be given here, except to point out what a slime ball the president is, and it is because he is incapable of simple honesty on any issue that he is clearly a slimeball.

Doesn't matter for anything except to establish character and to frame the debate so that things in general are looked at from a realistic perspective, and assuming honesty from Obama is just never a reasonable start point.

Those that falsely claim to want to start the debate from a position of good will? Well that is totally at odds with all Obama has said and done. The attempts of the Obama suckups to appeal to a desire for 'reasonable' debate and to not have expected it ever from Obama is the mark of someone that is truly not worthy of bothering with.

President Barack Obama could not pass a background check if he was applying for a gun permit or a job. Why has this man been allowed to remain in office or take the oath for a second time?

__________________________________________

I still don't understand how someone could become President of the United States and not have to submit a birth certificate BEFORE running for the office of president. Didn't all this stuff about the birth certificate come up AFTER he got elected. Four years later I am still scratching my head.Does anyone have an answer?

Before you call someone a liar you ought to educate yourself. Try doing a little bit of research on what he stated in his post.Surprise, surprise, you might actually learn something.I make darn sure that if I call someone a liar I actually know what I'm talking about.

The bottom line for me, is that as I said a number of times, Obama has a problem with simple honesty.

There is no reason at all for the note that you put out. None. Zero, Nada.

Therefore why was it done? At the very least some slime ball is playing games. That slime ball sits in the White House. Again, this is not a hard request to have been put to bed quickly, there absolutely were phony copies put out first.

What answer to why? It really makes little sense. Except of course that Obama is allergic to honesty if in fact this flunky that they called upon to make a totally unrequired statement is in fact honest.

Do you even know what Google is? There are many folks who claim themselves with knowledge of documents that indeed do claim that the birth certificate is a fake.

I can "Google" anything and find someone's POV that agrees with mine. But mere agreement doesn't make it so.

But the claim that was labeled a lie is merely that some experts say something. So if such experts can be easily found through Google, we have further proof that "lie", to some people, means "disagree with the hard-core left".

But the claim that was labeled a lie is merely that some experts say something. So if such experts can be easily found through Google, we have further proof that "lie", to some people, means "disagree with the hard-core left".

Okay. Provide a link to an "expert" who says Obama's birth certificate is a forgery.

Arpaio isn't an expert. Neither is his chief investigator, Mark Zullo. Is Paul Irey, who's served as an "expert" for both Arpaio and Orly Taitz really a forgery expert? No. He's a retired typographer. And he's retracted most of his claims.

Now use that self identified common sense, and just a tough of critical thought.

Why was this statement made? Wouldn't the Obama camp simply putting the document out end it?

Did this person act without the agreement of the administration?

Why the weaselly wording> If he had the WH OK< which OBVIOUSLY he did, why not just say, I have seen the Birth Certificate and if this is not it then it is a perfect copy? Notice the statement says nothing remotely resembling that. In fact it is very very careful NOT to say anything like that.

I was quite willing to let this die, even though my complaint about it still remains the same, why be a sneaky little spit?

My other statement, that document experts disagree? DO they? Does that what you get when you Google ? You want to slam me, why my point remotely off, these are folks with expertise (among the horde) that doubt the document released.

I totally reject your statement that the document can not be doubted. It should be doubted based on all the evidence, but most among that evidence what was offered as proof. The proof did not affirm in the least that the document presented, has the same information as a copy of Obama's Official Birth certificate

My common sense tell me, that Obama is a citizen, it also tells me there is something wrong with this scenario, mostly it tells me that this was easy to not get into, yet the Campaign team did, and it reinforces a pattern of sneaky that is what I have a problem with.

They have delivered exhaustive evidence that the PDF document presented as though it were Obama's B.C. is a photoshopped fraud.

This is a lie. All such claims have been refuted.

At this point, there's seriously nobody of any credibility claiming the documents are legitimate.

Another lie. There is no evidence that the BC is fake. The false claims are based on a lack of understanding of how Optical Character Recognition works, or on out-of-date source material (as in the case of Arpaio). All the accusations have been shot down.

Before you call someone a liar you ought to educate yourself. Try doing a little bit of research on what he stated in his post.Surprise, surprise, you might actually learn something.I make darn sure that if I call someone a liar I actually know what I'm talking about.

They have delivered exhaustive evidence that the PDF document presented as though it were Obama's B.C. is a photoshopped fraud.Do you really believe that?

Why would anyone of objective logic doubt it, given the actual evidence?

If he was born in Hawaii, why the fraud? That's exactly what *I* want to know... why the fraud, if it was theoretically unnecessary?

At this point, there's seriously nobody of any credibility claiming the documents are legitimate.That's untrue. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/29/expert-says-obama......Your posted 'expert' disclaims *one* point of evidence, and then simply 'declares' “You should not be so suspicious about this,”... hardly defensible objective logic or evidence.

A bogus document created to support what may otherwise be true, is still a bogus document... fraud.Yes. We learned that with the forged Bush TANG letters. But it's irrelevant in this case because the documents are not forgeries. And you support this with religious faith, I suppose... like global warming, right?

Why would anyone of objective logic doubt it, given the actual evidence?

Given what evidence?

Your posted 'expert' disclaims *one* point of evidence, and then simply 'declares' “You should not be so suspicious about this,”... hardly defensible objective logic or evidence.</i.

That's not true. First, Tremblay is Fox's expert, not mine. Second, he explains his analysis in the article and didn't "simply 'declare'" the conspiracy theorists are wrong. Third, what other "point-of-evidence" is there beside the claim that "layering" is proof of tampering?

Even the Birthers' "experts" have walked back on this. What you got left?

I am just so tired of this garbage from the left, and they ALLLLLLL do the same thing

The big lie lives on with the entire Dem cadre. Just say it is not true, repeat it and malign all who dare disagree.

They do it on issue after issue too. THe Tea Party? Guilty of everything imaginable, until of course they need to bail out one of the their problems then they are good guys and just like OWS

There is simply no way that they can not know they are doing this. They are simply not on the up and up. I do not think they have some bad motive (other than socialism that they want but deny they want), but they have no qualms about lying and trying to intimidate of you call them on their lies.

It may be the press outlets they listen to. If MSNBC does not report it, and huffpo and Moveon do not report it, it must be MUS. But they are trying to pass off lies as reality and they are doing it on a great many issues.

They lie when they do not need to, perhaps to lie so much that no one will believe that they lie that much, and they are sneaky about stuff even if the truth seems innocuous.

There is such a stench rising from the group that it is unmistakable and it is unclean

You've been told many many times that Arpaio was using source material from the wrong year ('69) to reference the handwritten code numbers for race. Obama was born in '61. Arpaio is lying when he claims he obtained the correct codes for '61. Every other claim falls apart for similar reasons.

Proof that Arpaio is lying, and that he copied the codes from a later manual. You can even tell from the smudges and streak marks that he used the wrong one, from '68-69. They cropped it to hide their lie.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an ad in a moonie newspaper and Maria Zebest, a woman who teaches adult-ed PhotoShop. There are more than a dozen reports on your list, but a lot of them are repetitive and all are derivative of two or three "experts": Paul Irey, Doug Vogt and Zebest.

Arpaio, for example, relies on Ivey (who took out the Wash Times ad.) Even the National Review thinks Arpaio is crazy.

Republicans who have chosen to associate with the birthers have done their party and their country a disservice. And as Sheriff Arpaio settles comfortably into that political mental ward, the same must be said of those Republicans who choose to associate themselves with him more broadly. Those who cannot distinguish between the birthers’ flim-flam and the critical questions that face our nation in 2012 will not win and do not deserve to.

Now I totally agrees, common sense tells me he was born in the USCommon sense ALSO tells me, that the documents we have seen might be BS.

From what evidence (if you can call it that) I've seen, it seems reasonably obvious that the actual facts are:

Obama was born in Hawaii, but claimed he was born in Kenya whenever it suited him (notably during his college days). His reluctance to address the issue is not because he's lying when he says he was born in Hawaii, but because he knows he was lying when he said he was born in Kenya so many times.

Note especially the 2004 Obama vs. Keyes debate, when apparently Keyes said to Obama "You are not even a natural born citizen!" and Obama replied without hesitation "So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency." Kind of an odd response if you're born in Hawaii and have always claimed that (although his campaign quickly "spun" the comment as Obama never addressed whether or not he was natural-born but rather was addressing the relevant qualifications). It's not an odd response if you've been claiming for many years that you were born in Kenya.

There's some possibly Obama got some sort of funding or scholarship that was available because he was "born in Kenya" that wouldn't have been available had he not lied, in which case fraud laws could apply. But (a) there's pretty much no info on how Obama funded his college days and (b) the statute of limitations is probably expired anyway.

There's plenty of people who corroborate that Obama claimed he was born in Kenya, with various degrees of believability and documentary evidence.

You've been told many many times that Arpaio was using source material from the wrong year ('69) to reference the handwritten code numbers for race. Obama was born in '61. Arpaio is lying when he claims he obtained the correct codes for '61. Every other claim falls apart for similar reasons.

_________________________________________________

I researched how to obtain a birth certificate in Hawaii in 1961.The information is out there. You should do the research yourself.It appears that it's relatively easy to obtain a birth certificate from Hawaii. Just saying.

Obama was born in Hawaii, but claimed he was born in Kenya whenever it suited him (notably during his college days). His reluctance to address the issue is not because he's lying when he says he was born in Hawaii, but because he knows he was lying when he said he was born in Kenya so many times.

When and to whom did Obama claim to have been born in Kenya?

Note especially the 2004 Obama vs. Keyes debate, when apparently Keyes said to Obama "You are not even a natural born citizen!" and Obama replied without hesitation "So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency."

Link? Sounds like an Internet rumor.

And Keyes says that exchange never happened. Besides, Keyes questioning of Obama's "natural born citizen" status is based on the fact that both of his parents weren't U.S. citizens, which isn't in dispute, not his birthplace.

There's plenty of people who corroborate that Obama claimed he was born in Kenya, with various degrees of believability and documentary evidence.

I already did. I didn't find any instances of Obama claiming to have been born in Kenya. I did find the story about a publicist writing he'd born in Kenya in a promo booklet 20 years ago. The person who wrote the bio said she didn't get the info from Obama and that it was a fact-checking error. Other than that, nothing besides a lot of unsubstantiated, spurious stuff on right-wing blogs. None of it is evidence, or "evidence." Just wild assertion.

As for your assertion, it's not really my job to back it up with actual facts, or, at least, one fact. If I were to claim that Obama won three NBA championship rings and the U.S. Masters Golf Tournament (under aliases, of course) and you said that was b.s., the burden of proof -- or at least evidence -- would be on me, not you.

As was clear in my post, I'm just giving my conclusion as to the most likely scenario based on "evidence" I've seen over the (several) years.

So I'll ask again: what "evidence?" You don't usually give evidentiary weight to made-up nonsense. Why are you making an exception?

I researched how to obtain a birth certificate in Hawaii in 1961.The information is out there. You should do the research yourself.It appears that it's relatively easy to obtain a birth certificate from Hawaii. Just saying.

In other words, you don't have any evidence to support your claims. We already covered that.

If I were to claim that Obama won three NBA championship rings and the U.S. Masters Golf Tournament (under aliases, of course) and you said that was b.s., the burden of proof -- or at least evidence -- would be on me, not you.

Perhaps so (another possibility is that no one has any "burden of proof"). There's a difference between a statement of simple facts, where one could look up, in this example, the NBA records... and a statement which purports to be the summary conclusion of an analysis of large quantities of data over long periods of time.

So I'll ask again: what "evidence?"

It's a take-it-or-leave-it sort of summary of my analysis. Unless you've got a major credit card handy, I don't see any reason to go through the entire analysis point by point. Anyone reading it who doesn't know me would, I presume, either just disregard it completely or maybe take it as a semi-interesting point to do their own research on. Readers who know my past history can give it whatever weight they choose to give my writings.

You don't usually give evidentiary weight to made-up nonsense. Why are you making an exception?

I'm not making an exception, except if you are reading closely you'll notice that I originally referred to "evidence (if you can call it that)" and later referred to " "evidence" ". That'll give you a clue as to how impressed I was with the data I evaluated. Unless you just throw the entire comment away, which is certainly a reasonable response for most people to take.

Perhaps so (another possibility is that no one has any "burden of proof").

I agree. There actually is no burden of proof here. You can say whatever silly stuff you want an not have to back it up with anything.

There's a difference between a statement of simple facts, where one could look up, in this example, the NBA records... and a statement which purports to be the summary conclusion of an analysis of large quantities of data over long periods of time.

Yes, there's a difference. But not much of one. Looking up the NBA and Masters records aren't going to help if Obama was playing under an alias.

As for your analysis of 'large quantities of data over long periods of time," I can only ask again: what data?

Unless you've got a major credit card handy, I don't see any reason to go through the entire analysis point by point.

I am sure you don't. Good excuse though. "I don't have the time to explain myself" is much better than "it's obvious."

You don't usually give evidentiary weight to made-up nonsense. Why are you making an exception?---I'm not making an exception, except if you are reading closely you'll notice that I originally referred to "evidence (if you can call it that)" and later referred to " "evidence" ".

I noticed. And that's why I'm all the more surprised you give any credence at all to this birther nonsense.